Realities of Watershed Management in the Philippines: The Case of the Iloilo-Maasin Watershed

7/25/2019 Realities of Watershed Management in the Philippines: The Case of the Iloilo-Maasin Watershed

1/26

For comments, suggestions or further inquiries please contact:

Philippine Institute for Development StudiesSurian sa mga Pag-aaral Pangkau nlaran ng Pil ipinas

The PIDS Discussion Paper Series

constitutes studies that are preliminary and

subject to further revisions. They are be-

ing circulated in a limited number of cop-

ies only for purposes of soliciting com-

ments and suggestions for further refine-

ments. The studies under the Series are

unedited and unreviewed.

The views and opinions expressed

are those of the author(s) and do not neces-

sarily reflect those of the Institute.

Not for quotation without permission

from the author(s) and the Institute.

July 2004

The Research Information Staff,Philippine Institute for Development Studies3rd Floor, NEDA sa Makati Building, 106 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City, PhilippinesTel Nos: 8924059 and 8935705; Fax No: 8939589; E-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our website at http://www.pids.gov.ph

Herminia A. Francisco and Jessica C. Salas

DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES NO. 2004-22

Realities of Watershed Managementin the Philippines: The Case

of the Iloilo-Maasin Watershed


2/26

RReeaalliittiieessooffWWaatteerrsshheedd

MMaannaaggeemmeennttiinntthheePPhhiilliippppiinneess:: TThheeCCaasseeoofftthheeIIllooiilloo--MMaaaassiinn

WWaatteerrsshheedd

BByy

HHeerrmmiinniiaaAA..FFrraanncciissccooJJeessssiiccaaCC..SSaallaass


3/26

2

Abstract

The paper analyzed the presence or absence of elements needed to have an effectivesystem of watershed management in the Maasin Watershed, Iloilo Province. IT concluded that:a) both the legal and institutional structures needed support watershed management effort arein place; b) there is evidence of a strong social capital existing in the upland and lowlandcommunities; c) there is an adequate level of technical capital investment to sustainablymanage the watershed; and d) there is sufficient financial resources to undertake various sitedevelopment initiatives. Nonetheless, with the culmination of the project, the remaining gapwould be to sustain the gains already made by the stakeholders in protecting the watershed,particularly in supporting upland communities who undertake watershed protection efforts sothat they will not pose a threat to the Maasin watershed. One approach put forward is to tapEnvironmental Service Payments.

Key words: watershed management approach, social capital, institutional infrastructure, humancapital, financial capital, and environmental service payments


4/26

3

by

Herminia A. Francisco & Jessica C. Salas1

Introduction

The call for the adoption of watershed management approach is not something new.This was made as early as two decades ago (Tesoro, 1997; Crux, 1997) and was alreadyembodied in many forestry programs of the Department of the Environment and Natural

Resources (Javier, 1999; Acosta; 2004; and Francisco; 2004). The question that could logicallybe asked then is: How come this approach has not gotten widespread implementation if it isindeed the right way to manage the countries natural resources- land and water resourcesalike?

This paper is part of a larger program that aims to answer this question by way oflooking at the countrys experiences in areas where watershed management has beenimplemented. Specifically, four watersheds were chosen: The Magat Watershed in Nueva Ecija-a critical watershed on account of its important role in supplying water for irrigation requirementsof vast areas of rice lands in Central Luzon and the hydropower supply for this region as well;the Manupali watershed that traverses the Upper part of the Pulangui River Basin-which drainswater to the Pulangui River that is a source of irrigation water and hydro-electricity for Bukidnon

residents; the Maasin watershed2 in the Province of Iloilo-which is the headwater of thewatershed that supplies the water requirements of the Iloilo city residents and the domestic andwater needs of neighboring towns; and the smallest watershed in Laguna, Pakil where thestrong leadership of community groups has resulted in improved situation of the watershed forthe sustained use of water in the municipality. This paper focuses on the case of the IloiloMaasin watershed.

The paper is organized as follows: the next section discusses the framework of the casestudies. This was followed by a brief description of the biophysical and socioeconomicconditions of the Iloilo Maasin Watershed. The history of the evolution of the watershedmanagement approach in the area as it exists today is then described followed immediately byan evaluation of the watershed experience using the case study framework as presented in the

earlier section. Finally, the paper ends with recommendations on how the watershed approachcould be sustained for the Maasin-Iloilo watershed and the identification of what lessons couldbe learned for watershed management in general in the countrybased on experiences fromthis particular watershed.

1Associate Professor, University of the Philippines Los Banos and President, Philippine Watershed Management Council,respectively.

2The Maasin watershed referred to is the headwater of the Tigum River; it belongs to the uplands of the biggerTigum-Aganan watershed.

Realities of Watershed Management

in the Philippines: The Case ofthe Iloilo-Maasin Watershed


5/26

4

Framework of Case Study Analysis

The book recently published by PIDS-SANREM-UPLB entitled-- Winning Water Wars:

Water Policy, Watershed Approach & Water Governance provides the framework for watershed-based management approach. Figure 1 shows the various elements that need to be present tohave an effective system of watershed management on the ground.

As shown, these elements include the need to design management around thebiophysical system and the ecological inter-relationships that govern this system. The rationalefor this is being that anything that you do in any part of the ecological unit is bound to createimpacts on the rest of the systemthere is thus a need to consider how the systemcomponents (natural and human) are inter-related so that the resource managers are madeaware of the consequences of any actions or inactions made within that ecological unitthewatershed.

The level of resources available to the watershed managers also determine the type ofmanagement initiatives that could be undertaken therein and how long they could undertakeprotection and/or rehabilitation efforts in the watershed. Sustaining the management initiativesin an area that is exposed to encroachment of rural communities who have very limited optionsto select from in supporting their livelihood is a tough challenge. In addition, there are interestgroups who would plunder the natural resources for short-term gains and greed, whenever theopportunities arisethe watershed needs to be protected from them as well.

The type of resources available to the watershed managers does not only refer tofinancial resourcesthey include the technical resources as well. Having financial resourcesalone without capable people to manage these resources well is not enough for financialresources are often limited and will be gone soon. Technical resources would refer to the

capability and skills possessed by those in the position to manage the watershed resources. Ananalysis of the level of technical capacity that exists in the watershed is thus important.

But adequacy of financial and technical resources alone would not be sufficient toensure that watershed management initiatives would succeed. A critical element is the supportof the communities living within the watershed and even those in adjoining areas, as they areboth area of influence and source of pressure on the watershed resources. In turn, communitiesare likely to support any initiative that they understand will affect them somehow, more so, in aneconomic fashion. While the economic linkage is easily seen and appreciated by thecommunities directly dependent on the resource, the ecological linkage is equally or even farmore important as they affect the whole of the watershed community and the rest of the society.There is thus a need to get community supportwith support that transcends the short-term

appreciation of the upland communities but one that mirrors full understanding of the ecologicalimportance of watershed management initiatives. Achieving this state may require large level ofIEC efforts but such efforts would depend on the level of social capital that exists in the area.Determining the status of this social capital is critical in pushing for and sustaining thewatershed management efforts in any area.


6/26

5

Watershed-BasedWater Resource

Planning

EconomicEfficiency-DominatedWater Policy

Watershed

erga/aug98

With LegalMandate and

Sound InstitutionalSupport

Local CommunitySupport and StrongLGU Commitment

Figure 1. Water Resource Management Strategy (cf: Rola and Francisco 2004)

Finally, there are actions that resource managers would do in the watershed that may

involve making land use changes or policy reforms to achieve the management goals. Theresource managers could only make those actions if they have the legal basis and institutionalsupport is in place for making said decisions. It is thus important to ensure that these legislativesupport for watershed management actionsbe they national or local, be present in the area.Likewise, it is important that the supporting institutional structure to implement managementdecisions in the watershed be put in place before or in the process of implanting thoseinitiatives.

To sum it upwatershed management is likely to work in an area where the relevantcommunity and the resource managers understand fully well the ecological inter-relationshipwithin the system; with a community having high level of social capital that supports thewatershed management initiatives; with adequate financial resources and capable technical

expertise of resource managers; and supporting legal and institutional support to undertakethose watershed management initiatives. The level of the financial; technical; social and legal &institutional capital that was available for the management of the Maasin watershed and thebigger Tigum-Aganan watershed was assessed in the paper.

The Maasin Watershed Reserve and the Tigum-Aganan Watershed: A Brief Profile

This section includes a brief characterization of the biophysical condition of the area andits socioeconomic environs. The discussion is expected to give an idea of what resources arethere in the watershed that will be subjected to management and who is the watershedcommunity that we are talking about in this paper.


7/26

6

The Maasin watershed is a 6,150 hectare land-area that forms part of the Tigum-Aganan

watershed; it is headwater source of the Metro Iloilo Water District (MIWD) that supplies the

water requirements of the Iloilo City. This part of the Tigum-Aganan watershed has been thesubject of early site development efforts on account of its critical role to the water supply of theCity. Most of the discussions in this paper of terms of watershed management initiatives willfocus on this watershed. The birth of the Iloilo Watershed Management Council in 2000formalizes the need to manage all the watersheds of the province of Iloilo. The Maasinwatershed falls under the Tigum-aganan watershed that is governed by a watershedmanagement board.

The Tigum-Aganan Watershed in turn is 29,700 hectares in size, 10,400 hectares ofwhich is located in the Aganan watershed and the rest (19,300 hectares) falls under the Tigumwatershed. In terms of land classification, there are 11,250 hectares of forestlands within thewatershed and 18,250 hectares of alienable and disposable land. The forest vegetation covers

only 4,000 hectares however, with brush lands consisting of 19,500 hectares. Rice paddieswere estimated at 1,700 hectares while areas devoted to other crops come to around 4,100hectares.

The entire Tigum-Aganan watershed is home to eight (8) municipalities and one city,namely: Maasin, Cabatuan, Sta. Barbara, Pavia, Leon, Alimodian, San Miguel, Oton, and IloiloCity. Of these, three are upland watershed: Maasin, Leon, and Alimodian. Together, theyaccount for 23% of the watershed population. As shown in Table 1, some 309 barangays arefound inside the Tigum-Aganan Watershed.

Table 1.- The Barangays of Tigum-Aganan Watershed3

Barangays insidethe watershed

Barangays outsidethe watershedMunicipality

No. % No. %

Total

(1) Maasin upland 49 98 1 2 50

(2) Alimodian upland 52 85 9 15 61

(3) Leon upland 9 11 76 74 85

(4) Cabatuan lowland 68 100 0 0 68

(5) San Miguel lowland 24 100 0 0 24

(6) Sta. Barbara

lowland

50 83 10 17 60

(7) Pavia coastal 17 94 1 6 18

(8) Oton coastal 17 46 20 54 37

(9) Iloilo City coastal 23 13 157 87 180

Total 309 53 274 47 583

3Kahublagan Sang Panimalay Foundation Report, Tigum-Aganan Watershed Board Strategic Plan, 2003.


8/26

7

The Tigum-Aganan watershed as shown in Figure 2 includes the eight towns and one

city listed in Table 1. As will be shown laterthe birth of watershed management initiatives inIloilo started with the Maasin Watershed 16 years ago.

Figure 2

The Tigum-Aganan River Basin-showing the Maasin Watershed (not in scale)

Historical Evolution of the Watershed Management Approach in the Area

The responsibility of protecting the Maasin Watershed belonged to the Metro Iloilo WaterDistrict (MIWD) as part of their water franchise to the area in the early 1990s. They have notbeen able to successfully protect the entire 6,150 hectares from intruders such that by 1992,about 10,000 people have been maintaining farms within the reserved area. Still, it must be saidthat the MIWD has been successful in preventing the development of settlements in the area.Figure 3 shows the condition of the Maasin watershed in 1991.

Aware that this situation would soon threaten the conditions of the watershed in thearea, the LGU, DENR and the NGO Community, including the MIWD, through the Maasin TaskForce, took over the management of the reserved watershed. The MIWD realized that theefforts to protect the watershed should include the people who depend on the watershed fortheir water source. To obtain the support of the people, the MIWD had spearheaded series ofawareness campaigns and construction of billboards across the city informing everyone that bythe year 2000, the Tigum River will not have enough water for drinkingif the Maasinwatershed will not be protected. The NGO community, for its part, also started similarcampaigns and this gave birth to the Save the Maasin Movement.

Maasin

Watershed


9/26

8

Figure 3. The Maasin Watershed Land Use Map, 19914

The City, having felt the problem, have responded to the callunder the leadership ofthe provincial government led by the then Governor Defensor.

The immediate task on hand was the rehabilitation of the degraded watershed. Thistranslated to the reforestation of the upper portion of the Maasin watershed, this being theheadwater of the Tigum River. Efforts to prevent further forest degradation were likewiselaunched.

The immediate action undertaken by the DENR, being the source of technical advice onforestry concerns was the setting up of tree plantations in areas cultivated by the communities

living around the watershed. Despite this action, however, the anticipated problem with thewater supply situation still manifested in later years. It was noticed that heavy siltation of theTigum River had taken place and this has affected the MIWDs treatment costs of the watergoing to the Iloilo City.

The response of the people was massive. They participated in tree planting activitiesand help raised the funds the support these initiatives in the watershed. The MIWD itself hascontributed PhP1 million to this effort, twiceonce through the LGU and the second, throughthe DENR. The result was the reforestation of some 500 hectares of forestlands in the MaasinWatershed.

4Salas, Jessica et al., Feasibility Study of the Rehabilitation of Maasin Watershed. KSPFI, 1993

A Degraded MaasinWatershed, 1991

Forest

Bamboo

Grassland

Cultivated


10/26

9

The LGU was jubilant of this success in reforesting a large part of the watershedbut

realized that this success was miniscule when compared to the size of the whole Maasin

watershedsome 6,150 hectares in all. It has set its eye on the entire Maasin watershed andhad asked the DENR to fund the project from the then existing Forestry Sector Project of thePhilippines. This project was funded by the loan money from JBIC, then, still called the OECF.The area was subjected to project appraisal carried out by a team from DENR and hassubsequently been granted a loan to reforest 3,150 hectares of forestlands. The loan was forsite development activities and community organizing efforts. Community organizing wascontracted to the Kahublagan Sang Panimalay Foundation, on account of its track record in theProvince and after stiff competition with other local and national NGOs. Community organizingefforts took two years and site development activities started in 1992 with contract from generalfund of DENR and ended in 1995. Expansion of organizing works and site developmentfollowed for another two years with loan funds from JBIC. By the end of 1995, the project hadaccomplished the following:

Box 1: Summary of Major Accomplishments in the Maasin Watershed

Figure 4 shows the land use map of the Maasin watershed, after undertaking those sitedevelopment activities.

The project comes with certain conditions however. This includes the creation of theSupervising Site Management Office (SuSiMo) that will oversee site development activities incoordination with the community groups and their leaders. As designed, a Protected Area

CO organizing works with 16 people associations (PO) organized into afederation

Completion of socioeconomic baseline surveys in upland communities

Assistance provided to POs who were contracted to do sitedevelopment

Conducted series of IEC

Provided numerous training for team building, leadership, preparationof feasibility studies, and others.

Tenure security embodied in the community-based forest management

agreement (CBFMA)1that allows 25 years of stewardship renewable for another 25 years.

Assisted PO in establishment of 17 livelihood projects

Physical accomplishments of the OECF Loan as of December 1999comprise of:reforested 1,050 ha; agroforestry (749 out of 884 ha target); bamboo

(249 ha) andriverbank stabilization (60 ha) and rattan (94 of the 111 ha target).

The GOP funding accomplished the following: riverbank rehabilitationof 270 ha,agroforestry development in 300 ha, ANR in 300 ha, and vegetative

measuresin 20,000sq.m

The following protective infrastructures were also put in place: 85 kmtrails; 700 m fire lines; 77 units of nursery, look-out tower of 7 units, 14


11/26

10

Management Board (PAWB) was created as wellwith representatives from various sectors,including the LGU. The PAWB should have taken the role of the management body for theMaasin Watershed but this role was not realized as the SuSiMo took over the management

function. The role of the local government unit has thus become minimal and those of thecommunities in the lower watershedthe city of Iloilo, along with other stakeholders. The majorplayers become the upland communities5, the DENR and the assisting NGO. After the

Maasin Today

Rehabilitated

Old Growth Forest

5 The upland communities have had bad experience under past attempts to reforest the area. Specificallythe

farmers were made to believe that they could undertake agroforesty systems in the Maasin watershed. However,even that scheme was not allowed in so-called critical watersheds of the countryunder which the Maasin watershedfalls. Because of this bad experience, they did not participate in the efforts made by the Iloilo City residents. The JBICfunding however provided them employment opportunities and most communities took advantage of this project andbecame participants to the project.


12/26

11

Community organizing contractthe role of the NGO becomes marginalized as well. The LGUrealizes that the SuSiMos role and the active participation of the POs are at best temporary innaturedependent on the existent of JBIC funding. A more sustainable institutional structureneeds to be put in place. This led to the creation of the Iloilo watershed management council(IWMC), which will be discussed in more detail in another section.

Elements of the Watershed Approach in the Maasin Reserve and the Tigum-Aganan Watershed

This section presents the analysis of whether the various elements depicted in Figure 1

are present in the case of the Maasin watershed. The question on whether the natural resourcemanagement is being governed by the ecological unit-defined by the watershed seems to be anon-issue in this particular caseas the watershed-water linkage has clearly been establishedin the early 1990s when the water crisis was felt in Iloilo City. The ensuing information,education, and communication (IEC) campaigns undertaken by the Kahublagan SangPanimalay Foundation carries this think watershed theme as its banner message in all itsendeavors. There is therefore a high level of acceptance of the watershed-based managementapproach in the study area.

Are There Legislative and Institutional Support for Watershed ManagementApproach in the Area?

The 1991 Local Government Code (LGC) or Republic Act (RA) 7160 provides the legalbasis for local governance of the countrys natural resourcesincluding its watershed. Thiscode transferred certain responsibilities and powers relating to environmental managementfunctions to LGUs as shown in Table 1.

Supported by this legislation, the Iloilo Watershed Management Council (IWMC), a multi-sectoral local body created by the Iloilo provincial local government was created through anordinance to put into action the provisions of the LGC.

The Iloilo Watershed Management Council

On October 2, 2000, the provincial government of Iloilo passed Ordinance No. 2000-41

creating the Iloilo Watershed Management Council (IWMC). The council will be responsible forthe conservation, development, protection, and utilization of the 15 watersheds in the Provinceof Iloilo. To carry out this task, the IWMC is empowered to form watershed boards for eachspecific watersheds or cluster of watersheds. To date, three watershed boards are alreadycreated (Tigum Aganan Watershed Management Board; Magapa-Suage WatershedManagement Council; and Sibalom Watershed Management Board) with a fourth, coming upsoonBarotac Nuevo River watershed council.

The creation of the Council was not a difficult process as it simply formalizes 13 years ofefforts of a multi-sectoral and multi-tiered group of stakeholders within the province to respondto problems and issues that initially started with the objective of reforesting and rehabilitating the


13/26

12

upper Maasin watershed which is positioned inside the Tigum-Aganan River BasinSalas(2004) .

The structure of the IWMC is shown in Figure 5. The IWMC governs the activities of thevarious watershed boards/sub-councils, which in turn is responsible for their particularwatershed. Four watershed boards were created by the early part of 2000. The Boards areresponsible for managing the Barangay Information Centers (BICs). By 2003, there are 88 BICsthat were formed. As initially envisioned, the BICs are the venues for continuing educationactivities at the barangay levels. Eventually, however, they have evolved as the implementers ofthe so-called, peoples initiatives that include various community level efforts to take care of theenvironment. Most of the peoples initiatives activities include: tree planting, riverbank protectionand rehabilitation, solid waste management, eco-friendly livelihood projects and promotion ofsustainable agriculture technologiesall of which are geared in protecting the watersheds.

Figure 5

The Organizational Structure of the Iloilo Watershed Management Council

The council is made up of 16 members, from various groups within the watershed.Among them are members from Sanggunihang Panlalawigan, from the League of

Municipalities, the City of Iloilo, and relevant government agencies, such as the NationalIrrigation Authority (NIA), the Philippine Information Agency (PIA), the Metro Iloilo Water District(MIWD), Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Department of Agrarian Reform(DAR), and other entities like the Iloilo Business Club, the Kahublagan Sang PanimalayFoundation and the KAPAWA-Maasin or the peoples organization.

The Watershed Boards, in turn is made up of representatives from the irrigatorsassociation, water district or water association, business groups, non-government organizations,peoples organizations, river quarry association, and the academe. Note that the IWMC is stillpart of a higher hierarchy and in turn is also governing several level of management hierarchyunder it (Table 2).

ILOILO WATERSHED

MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

RIVER BOARDS/COUNCILS

Magapa-SuageWatershed Mgt.

Council

Tigum-AgananWatershed

Mgt. Board

Jalaur, NorthernIloilo, Jar-aw,

Tanjan Mgt.

Board, Etc.

SibalomWatershed

Mgt. Council

River/Brook Groups

BIC + BIC + BIC

Peoples Initiatives

PROVINCE OF ILOILO WATERSHED STRUCTURE

ILOILO WATERSHED

MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

RIVER BOARDS/COUNCILS

Magapa-SuageWatershed Mgt.

Council

Tigum-AgananWatershed

Mgt. Board

Jalaur, NorthernIloilo, Jar-aw,

Tanjan Mgt.

Board, Etc.

SibalomWatershed

Mgt. Council

River/Brook Groups

BIC + BIC + BIC

Peoples Initiatives

PROVINCE OF ILOILO WATERSHED STRUCTURE


14/26

13

Table 2. Multi-level Structure of Watershed Management

Area Managing Body ResponsibilityRegional Water Committee of

the RegionalDevelopment CouncilIV

Monitoring and evaluation of waterprograms, policy advocacy, informationdissemination and support of the creation ofmulti-sector watershed management groupsin the region.

Provincial Iloilo WatershedManagement Council(IWMC)

Policies, funds, actuation, networking.

Watershed WatershedManagement Board

Planning, actuation, technical application,decision making, programming, watershed

monitoring and evaluation

Municipal Municipal WatershedCouncil or thewatershed coregroupb

Implementation, participation in planning,consolidation, facilitation of technicalservices and information to barangay

Barangay Barangay InformationCenter

Provision of information to peoplesinitiatives, whether individual or group.Conduct of community mapping and waterplanning exercises.

Households

or theneighborhood

Peoples Initiative Participation in community mapping, water

plans. Access of information, Demand fortechnical services. Decision and initiation ofaction.

a Created on June 5, 2003 under the Regional Sustainable Development Council.Still to be endorsed to the Regional Development Council.

b The core group is used for informal steering groups in municipalities that have notyet legalized their councils.

Cf: Salas, J. 2004

The Provincial Environment and Natural Resource Office (PENRO) of the LGU of Iloilo

province serve as the Secretariat to the Council in the first few years. This as subsequentlytransferred to the office of the provincial administrator. The Secretariat function is currentlyshared by the Kahublagan Sang Panimalay Foundation.

At the watershed level, the watershed board created for each unit has clearly definedgoals for their particular watershed. For the Tigum-Aganan watershed for instance, theframework plan has already been formulated as follows:


15/26

14

Box 1. Framework Plan of the Tigum-Aganan Watershed Management Board

Cf: Salas (2004)

In addition, the watershed has already identified a clear training program for itsmembers, as shown in Box 2.

Vision Statement

A habitable and productive Tigum-Aganan Watershed sustained andprotected by well-informed LGUs and empowered communities working inharmony towards an improved quality of life.

Mission Statement

We commit to work together, develop our capabilities, pool resources,effect policies, and network and advocate initiatives for watershed protection,rehabilitation and management.

Objectives:

1. To protect the forest and to increase vegetative cover. (Forest)2. To promote and practice environment friendly technology in agriculture,

conserve water and soil, and promote food for health of the people.(Agri-forest)To protect the river system through quality water monitoringby the communities.

3. To promote continuous education, information and dissemination thattranslates into action.

4. To improve access to minimum basic needs.5. To draw and promote alternative livelihood activities for

communities.


16/26

15

Box 2. Training for Community-based Integrated Watershed Management

More importantly, the Watershed Management Plan is already integrated in themunicipalitys Annual Investment Plan and Annual Development Plan. This link ensures that theplans for the watersheds now become part of the regular programs of the municipalities that

comprise the watershed.

From all indications therefore, one could only conclude that there is a full acceptanceamong the local government units at all levels that their natural resources should be managedwith the watershed as the relevant ecological unit. This was manifested in the creation of thewatershed management council and the various watershed boards who are responsible inputting into action this approach of natural resource management.

The legal basis from the national levels (through the Local Government Code), theprovincial, municipal and even the lowest political unitthe barangay level (through varioustypes of ordinances) for the implementation of the watershed-based management approachseem to be in place already for the various Iloilo watersheds, and for the Maasin watershed, in

particular. Also, it would appear that the institutional structure to support the implementation ofthe various watershed level activities seems to be in place as well through the various peoplesinitiatives and the existence of the barangay information centers.

Social Capital: Are the watershed communities capable of tackling the job?

Putnan (1995) defines social capital as: features of social organization such asnetworks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.A community with high level of social capital is expected to perform better in carrying outcommunity project-such as watershed management initiatives. This causality is not hard toaccept, as this in fact is the essence of all community organizing efforts that form part of almostall development projects. One could argue also that social capital is the effect or result of

1. Area delineation2. Establish institutional mechanism3. Watershed Framework Plan

a. Vision-Mission-Objectivesb. Impact indicators

4. Watershed Characterizationa. Barangay community mappingb. Barangay water planning

5. Strategic planninga. Consolidation of community mapsb. SWOT exercise

c. Consolidation of water plansd. Identification of the central strategy and programs6. Integration of the Watershed planned activities with the

municipal Annual Investment Plan and Annual DevelopmentPlan

7. Monitoring and Evaluation8. Information Education Communication


17/26

16

development project since almost all development projects do invest in social capital formation.Regardless of whether is a cause or an effect or both (13, Putnam et al 1993), its importance indetermining projects success is acknowledged (19, 27, Narayan and Pritchett 1997, Heller

1996, WB 1998).

There are various ways by which higher social capital could contributes to projectsuccess. For one, they tend to reduce transaction costs since communities that have higherlevel of social trusts and solidarity, formed groups and networks, and have experiencedundertaking collective actions and cooperation tend to work better and would need lessinvestment in meeting costs to carry out community projects. Dissemination of informationamong members is also easier. In addition, there is less incentive for defection and the group,thus, reducing the risks of loss to everyone, shares free riding when social capital is strongerand the risks of the project.

There are five dimensions of the social capital that one could look into: a) groups and

networks, b) trust and solidarity (, c) collective behavior, d) information dissemination, and e)social cohesion. Groups and networks could be assessed in terms of membership toorganizations and relationship of the group with other groups, and the presence of ready sourceof credits that households could easily run into. Trust and solidarity in turn could be evaluatedusing such variables as assessment of whether community would help the household in times ofneed and the households willingness in turn to help the community, either in terms of time orfinancial contribution and the degree of trust that they place on the government leaders Quite arelated set of variables are those pertaining to collective action and cooperation whichmeasures the extent to which the household do participate in communal activities and theirwillingness to help in said actions.

The watershed communities can be divided into two broad groups: upland communities

and lowland communities. The former are either living within the watershed or/or cultivatingfarms therein and/or collecting forest resources found within the forested portion of thewatershed. The lowland communities are those whose stake to the watershed comes in theform of the environmental services, e.g. water supply and ecological functions, derived therefrom. To a large extent, the interests of these two groups in the watershed do run in conflict witheach other, especially in a degraded watershed where the causes of degradation are peoplesuse of resources in the upstream. However, some compromise solutions may be achieved toensure that the interests of both are accommodated in the management decisions over thewatershed.

As indicated elsewhere in the report, there is high level of awareness among the lowlandcommunities on the importance of protecting the watersheds to support their water supply. They

have felt the problem and have responded by participating in various tasks undertaken inwatershed management efforts in the watershed in the early 1990s. The social capital that wasformed in those early efforts to protect the watershed was harnessed through the continuing IECprogram carried out by Kahublagan Sang Panimalay Foundation. The Ford Foundationthrough the project Hydrosolidarity, in turn supported the Kahublagans IEC initiatives. Severaltraining activities on various aspects of watershed management were also provided through thisprogram. There is thus high level of social capital already established among the lowlandcommunities. These translate more concretely to the formation of some ---Barangay InformationCenters (BICs) that were formed in the ---barangays that make up the Tigum-AgananWatershed. The formation of these BICs in support of watershed management was formalizedthrough barangay resolutions.


18/26

17

What about the upland communities? The funding provided by the Forestry SectorProject for the rehabilitation of the Maasin watershed included a 2-year funding for communityorganizing (CO) efforts. The task of undertaking this CO works was awarded to the Kuhublagan

Foundation also. The efforts included building capacity to undertake cooperative endeavors,harnessing inter-personal relationship among the members, and provision of managerial andtechnical skills to undertake reforestation activities and management of the field-level activities.The results are the formation of several peoples organizations in the various uplandcommunities surrounding the Maasin watershed and their coalition into the KAPAWAor the -------. Overall, therefore, one can say there are strong social capital has been enhanced in theupland communities of the Maasin Watershed and in the lowland communities of the TigumAganan watershed, to some extent.

The remaining challenge is fostering lowland-upland interactions in the watershed, asthere seems to be limited interactions taking place at this level. This level of interaction isparticularly critical as we discuss the proposed role of environmental service payments in

sustaining success in rehabilitation efforts in the upland watershed towards the end of thispaper.

Technical Capital: Are those involved in watershed management technicallyequipped to handle the tasks?

The huge support provided by the Forestry Sector Project for the rehabilitation of theMaasin watershed included funding for building technical capacity of those who are involved inwatershed management activities. Those trained included the participating peoplesorganizations that took part in the various site development activities and the staff of the DENRwho are engaged in directing these activities. The training covers the technical aspects of

preparation of site management plan, mapping and surveying, nursery establishment andmaintenance, plantation development, agro-forestry, silvi-cultural practices for fruit plantation,and management of remaining secondary forests through timber stand improvements andassisted natural regeneration. In addition, the people organizations were taught variousmanagerial skills like financial accounting and book keeping, and marketing linkaging and evenpreparation of project proposals and feasibility studies. Kahublagan has been contracted byDENR to give these training as provided in the CO contract. In addition, Kahublagan has alsoprepared the management manual, forms, policies and rules and regulations that covered theoperations for site development activities. To provide guidance on these mattersthe variousstaffs of DENR who were assigned to the project were likewise given training on varioustopicsalong with other DENR staff involved in other Forestry Sector Projects in various partsof the country.

One problem though exists and that is the difference in opinion on the method ofrestoring the vegetative cover of the Reserve area, i.e., the use of fast growing exotic species oruse of endemic species. There is also still a gap on the technical skills with regards appropriatefarming practices that will protect soil and water quality Overall, however, one could say thatthere is relatively good level of technical capital that was formed in the area from the variouswatershed management initiatives in the pastand these could help in sustained managementof the Maasin Watershed.


19/26

18

Financial Capital: Were Financial Resources Adequate andIs the Availability of Funds Sustainable?

The building of technical capital, the social capital, and the legal and institutionalcapacity in the Maasin watershed was made possible by the infusion of large financial resourcesthat were made available to the area. In fact, one could even say that there was indeed aninvestment over-kill in the area given the massive resources poured in largely through theForestry Sector Project and the additional funds raised prior to the entry of the said project.

In summary, the following financial resources were brought in for the implementation ofvarious watershed management initiatives in the Maasin Watershed:

During the water-crisis period that led to the civil societys (lowland communities)participation to support protection of the watershed--some P0.5M donations from various

groups were raised with the provincial government providing a counterpart fund ofP0.5M as well.

Metro Iloilo Water District provided P1M contribution for watershed protection activitiesto the Iloilo LGU. Their subsequent yearly contribution of P1M went to the DENR.

The National Economic Development Authority (NEDA)has also allocated P3.7M forthe construction of 2,850 cum of structural measures (GABION) and provided P1.4M toundertake three research studies. It has also provided P573, 000 for the establishmentof 53,900 sqm of vegetative measures.

The Ford Foundation has also provided funding for the IEC activities of the Kahublagan

Foundation

DENR has allocated the following funds from various sources:

o ADB Fund of P1, 778,450 for Survey, Mapping and Planningo OECF fund of P44, 269,143 for community site development activities in 2,685

hectares and P4, 833,000 for community organizing, and P2, 610,635 formonitoring and evaluation

o National Government provided P9, 473,936 for rehabilitation of 1,070 hectaresand P2, 479,000 for community organizing

OECF loan of P1, 884,294 covering 100 hectares and P41, 000 for the establishment of

20,0000 sqm of vegetative strips

The enormity of these financial resources poured in to the Maasin Watershed would leadanyone to expect the project to have accomplished the various site development goals theproject has set. It seems it doesif improvement in the vegetative cover of the watershed is tobe used as the gauge. In fact, DENR is quite pleased with the high performance rating of theMaasin watershed and so, is the LGU who takes pride in seeing a greener and forested MaasinWatershed6. Are these gains in vegetative improvement worthy of the costs invested to have

6An interview with key informants in the area revealed however that the fruit trees planted in the area have not been

growing as fast as expectedthey even refer to their growth as stuntedsomething that they blamed to theunsuitability of those fruit species to the area.


20/26

19

them or are these goals even achieved in the most cost-effective mannerare questions thatsurely deserve some answers but not in this paperas answering them requires a separatestudy altogether.

Conclusion: Watershed Management for the Maasin WatershedQuo Vadis?

The Forestry Sector Project support to the project has endedthe remaining funds formaintenance of the site development activities have been exhausted. The people organizationshave been paid of their last payments from the project. The question that they now face iswhere will they get their income now that the project is over? They have given up their farmsinside the watershed, in return for their participation to the projectbut now, they do not evenknow where they will get the money to buy the rice that their family needs? What aboutlivelihood activities started during the projectthey do have the cooperative but not everyonecould be involved in the livelihood activitiesin fact, very few are involved. Will this pose a

threat to the watershedthis is likely because if the people do not have the resources tosupport themthey may go back to the forest if they run out of options.

From the key informant accounts, it would seem that there are already some familieswho have started clearing up of the forests just outside of the Tigum-Aganan watershedreluctantly admitting that a few has even started farming inside the watershed. What do peoplesorganizations do about this? Arent they supposed to undertake protection activities in the areaafter all the training that they have received? When posed these questions, the key informantsadmitted that they have tried to talk to those few families encroaching in the areabut whenthey reasoned out that they needed the food to feed their familythey could only sympathizewith them for they know how difficult life is to many of their community membersand theyadmitted that this situation could go out of handif no serious efforts to provide livelihood

alternatives to the upland communities will be undertaken.

It was also pointed out that recommendation to implement community-basedmanagement in the area has already been made to DENR even in the early stage of theprojects implementationthe idea is to provide the community members opportunities to earnfrom limited land use activities within the watershedso that they would continue in providingprotection to the watershed. This however was denied since the Maasin Watershed falls on thecritical watershed category (strictly no-utilization allowed). The LGU of Maasin has furthermorepassed an existing legislation that also prohibits any form of agricultural cultivation in the area.Againthe intent is to limit access of upland communities to the area.

But, while the intent of these laws is meant to protect the greater members of society

mostly, in the lowland communitiesthe reality is such that the upland communities continue topose some threats to all those that have been gained from the various watershed managementinitiatives undertaken in the Maasin Watershed. It would seem pitiful to lose thoseif thisthreat will not be addressed.

At still another level is the question on how the gains on the various fronts: social,technical, institutional/legal capital could be sustained? Surely, the IWMC and their boards needfinancial resources to operate. The social capitalwhile already strong would continue to needto be pushed in the right direction through information, education and communication (IEC)campaignsfor complacency could set itand likewise, the technical capability of the peopleneeds financial resources to be put in use. All these questions boil down to the question of howwe get the funds to support watershed management activities in the Maasin Watershed. Given


21/26

20

the gains achieved to datethe financial resources need not be bigcompared to what anotherwatershed which still requires substantial site development activities. All that is needed arefunds to support protection and forest maintenance efforts by upland communities, either as

salaries to as many people who can be involved in protection activities or funds to supportlivelihood investments, and the minimum needed to support the operation of the variouscouncils and boards.

To this end, it is worth mentioning that for the Tigum-Aganan watershed, the LocalGovernment Unit members have passed an ordinance that shall allocate 1% fund out of theirannual IRA for its watershed management programs. Likewise, there was a commitment fromthe business sector NGO and PO members to initiate fund raising activities for this endeavor.These funds may be sufficient for the Boards operationalizationbut not to support the uplandcommunities in the area.

On the part of the IWMCthe commitments made by MIWD for P1 Million annual

contribution could be tapped. The MIWD has made two payments alreadyone to the LGU andthe other to the DENR, but did not continue making the payments as they were not satisfied withthe way their contribution has been used. Essentiallythey were not convinced that the moneywent directly to watershed management efforts. A key informant has mentioned that the MIWDis willing to make the contribution to the Kahublagan, but Kahublagan would rather have thepayment be made to IWMC, as this body needs the resources to finance its various projects forthe Tigum-Aganan watershed. This money could form part of the environmental servicepayments discussed in the next section.

Sustaining Watershed Management Initiatives in the Maasin Watershed:Through the Environmental Service Payments Scheme7

The preceding analysis has shown that the major challenge faced by the IWMC is howto sustain the gains made from the various watershed management efforts in the upper portion(i.e. the Maasin Watershed) of the Tigum-Aganan watershed and how to expand said efforts tothe rest of the watershed. One mechanism to raise resources for said effortsthat is even moresustainable that other meansis through the Environmental Service Payment Scheme that isdiscussed in this section.

Payments in the true sense of the word involves transfer of cash (or a good in a bartereconomy) in exchange for a good or a service, usually occurring in a market setting. Thisdefinition is quite limiting, however, when one speaks of environmental services, as differentforms of payment exist in the production of said services (Figure 6). Upland communities

collaborating in the implementation of forest/watershed management projects could be paid orcompensated in terms of wages for services rendered, provision of free planting materials,conduct of skills-training, technical assistance, and tenure security, among others. In thisbroader sense, the payment takes the meaning of rewards. For the purpose of this paper, thesetwo terms are used interchangeably.

7This portion of the report was lifted from the paper written by Francisco (2003)


22/26

21

Figure 6The Environmental Payment Scheme

Nonetheless, a parallelism can be drawn in a market setting in the sense that thepayment or reward involving environmental services also involves buyers and sellers. In thispaper, the seller is the provider of the environmental serviceparticularly, the upland farmersperforming sustainable agricultural land use practices and/or participating in reforestation andwatershed rehabilitation activities.

The focus are the upland farmers as providers of environmental services is justifiedsince other environmental service providers (e.g. government, non-government organization[NGO], water district, and hydropower company) are presumably already getting paid for doingthis taskeither in terms of salaries for organizations whose mandate is environmental serviceprovision or through the revenues received from the product (e.g., water, hydroelectric) thatmade use of the environmental service as input to production. The buyer referred to here arethe beneficiaries of the environmental service (e.g., water users, hydroelectric consumers, bio-prospecting firms, water district and hydropower firms, generator of carbon gases, and society national and global--at large, represented by the government, NGO, Local government unit, andinternational organizations).

Environmental

Services (ES)

Watershed protection

Biodiversity conservation

Carbon se questration

Environmental

resource

Upland poor

Sustainable farming

practices

Protection of

natural resources

Rehabilitation of

degraded areas

Environmental

Rewards

Public Provision

Assistance by IA,NGO,PO

Payments by ES

Beneficiaries


23/26

22

Figure 6 presents a schematic presentation of the actors (buyers and sellers) involved in

environment service provision. It also shows that payments or rewards can be broadly

classified into public provision (for assistance provided by the government, usually, as part ofthe development assistance packages); support given by NGO, international organizations, andeven by business firms, usually packaged through upland development projects or pro-poorinitiatives;

Figure 7Actors Involved in the Environmental Service Payments Scheme

and payments made by direct beneficiaries of the environmental service (e.g., water districts,hydroelectric firms, fisher folks, industries engaged in bio-prospecting and those that exceedtheir carbon emissions, among others).

For the Maasin Watershed, the lowland communities have made some forms ofpayments through their contributions (in cash and in kind) in the early efforts to reforest the 500

hectares portion of the headwater of the watershed. The MIWD has also made this contributionthrough the P2 M payments it has made to the LGU of Iloilo and the DENR, respectively. Thegovernmentthrough public provision (i.e through, the Forestry Sector Project of DENR), hasalso made some forms of payments to the upland communities, particularly in undertake thevarious site development and maintenance activities.

Sowhy are payments still needed at this stage? Becausethere are costs toundertaking protection activities for the sites that have been developed through the variousforms of investments made by the government and the lowland communities as well. Surely, itwill be a big loss if those gains will be lost by lack of protection efforts in the area. Can DENRnot do the protection efforts? History has shown that the DENR capacity to handle this task was

UPLAND POOR

PROVIDERS(Sellers)

International Agencies

(GEF, WB, USA ID, etc.,)

providing deve lopment

assistance

Public Sector Investment

in Environment

(DENR, LGU, SCU)

Private/ Business Sector(Water Districts, Hydropower

Plants, Water Bottling Co., etc)

CONSUMERS

Governmentin behalf

of their constituents

Firms

using environmental input

Direct Consumers

of environmental output/services

water users

recreationists

hydropower consumers

etc.,.

E

N

V

I

R

O

N

M

E

N

T

A

L

S

E

R

V

I

C

E

S

(Buyers)

International Agencies

(GEF, WB, USAID, e tc.,) in

Behalf of global

interests


24/26

23

constrained by limited manpower and financial resources also. Hence, they have learned to relyon community-based forest management approach, and more recently, has actively called uponthe LGU to be active players on this regard. But even the LGU would need the support of the

upland communities in this task.

As such, the upland communities who will perform the service of protecting thewatershed and all the site development investments made therein, should somehow, becompensated.

How and in what forms should the upland communities be compensated? From Figures6 and 7 it would seem that tapping the payments of beneficiaries of watershed services isthe more sustainable way to do this. Public provisions and contributions from external/foreignfunding are not sustainable. These are dependent on the existence of the project and ends asthe project ended. However, payments anchored on receipts of watershed service (say, cleanand plenty of water) are sustainable as the flow of these services should be sustainable as well

and is in fact, dependent on the provision of watershed protection. Upland communities performa service and get paid. Lowland communities receive an environmental good and have to pay.In real-life scenariothis would mean that part of the water bill paid by water consumers shouldgo to the watershed protection efforts. While it is true that MIWD has started making suchpaymentsthere is a need to review of the amount of payment that they make is adequate forthe service that it gets. It is also possible that water consumers who understand the situationcould be willing to pay some more to contribute to protecting their watershed. A strong IECeffort is needed to mobilize this support by lowland communities. This aspect about determiningthe appropriate amount of environmental service payments to be made by water usersdomestic, industries, farmers and commercial water consumers need further study. Allocatingthis potential payment to services by upland communities and the operation of the IWMC tosustain this lowland-upland community linkage should also be determined as this scheme is

studied further in the future. The future should not take long, however, as the threats to thewatershed is real and do exists at present.


25/26

24

Box 3: Legal Basis for the collection of the Share of the local government(Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991;

specific provisions)

Section 289Share in the proceed from the Development and utilization of the NationalWealth Local Government Units shall have an equitable share in the proceeds derived fromthe utilization and development of national wealth within their respective areas, includingsharing the same with inhabitants by way of direct benefits.

Article 386 (b) for the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of

1991. The term Natural Wealth shall mean all natural resources situated within the PhilippineTerritorial jurisdiction including lands of public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, oils,potential energy forces, gas, and oil deposits, forest products, wildlife, flora and fauna, fisheryand aquatic resources, and all quarry products.

Section 291. Share of the local government from any government agency or owned andcontrolled corporation engaged in the utilization and development of national wealth based onthe following formula, whichever, will produce a higher share for the LGU:

One percent (1%) of the gross sales or receipts from the preceding calendar year; or

40% of mining taxes, realties, forestry and fishery charges, and such other taxes, fees orcharges, including related surcharge interest of fines the government agency or owned orcontrolled corporation would have paid if it were not otherwise exempt.

Section 293. Remittances of the share of LGU. The share of the LGU from the utilization anddevelopment of national wealth shall be remitted in accordance with section 286 of this Code.Provided, however, that in the case of any government agency or government owned orcontrolled corporation engaged in the utilization and development of the national wealth, suchshall be directly remitted to the provincial, cities, municipal, or barangay treasurer concernedwithin 5 daysafter the end of each quarter.


26/26

25

References

Cruz, R. 1997. Integrated Land Use Planning and Sustainable Watershed Management.Paper

presented at the Third Multi-Sectoral Watershed Management Forum, Forestry DevelopmentCenter, Institute of Forest Conservation, UPLB-CF, College, Laguna. 27-28 October.

Francisco, H. 2002. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE PAYMENTS: Experiences, Constraints andPotential in the Philippines. Paper presented at an ICRAF-sponsored Conference in Bogor,Indonesia.

Francisco, H. 2004. Watershed-based Water Management Strategy: Why Push for it? In:Winning the Water Wars: Watersheds, Water Policies, and Water Institutions. Ed: Rola,Francisco, and Liguton. SANREM-CISP, PIDS, & UPLB. Pasig, Philippines

Acosta, Romy.2004. Assessment of the Implementation of the Watershed Approach in Natural

Resources Management in the Philippines In: Winning the Water Wars: Watersheds, WaterPolicies, and Water Institutions. Ed: Rola, Francisco, and Liguton. SANREM-CISP, PIDS, &UPLB. Pasig, Philippines

Javier, J. 1997. Watershed Management Policies and Institutional Mechanisms: A CriticalReview.Paper presented at the Third Multi-Sectoral Watershed Management Forum, ForestryDevelopment Center, Institute of Forest Conservation, UPLB-CF, College, Laguna. 27-28October.

KAHUBLAGAN SANG PANIMALAY FOUNDATION INC. 2001. Watersheds LearningCommunities. A Final Report to the Ford Foundation. October.

KAHUBLAGAN SANG PANIMALAY FOUNDATION INC. 2003. Working TowardsHydrosolidarity: Managing Upstream-Downstream Concerns in the Watershed. Final Report tothe Ford Foundation.

KAHUBLAGAN SANG PANIMALAY FOUNDATION INC.2003. Tigum-Aganan Watershed BoardStategic Plan Report

Salas, Jessica et al., 1993. Feasibility Study of the Rehabilitation of Maasin Watershed.KAHUBLAGAN SANG PANIMALAY FOUNDATION INC.

Tesoro, Florentino. 1999. Watershed Management: Challenges and Opportunities. Paperpresented during the GOLD Conference entitled: Local Experiences and Collective Actions in

Watershed Management, October 26-28. Cebu Midtown Hotel, Cebu City.

Realities of Watershed Management in the Philippines: The Case of the Iloilo-Maasin Watershed

Documents